How to develop for printable negatives?

[Lighthouse]

Hi everyone, I’ve been a long time user of this site (well, since it was apug), but never had the need to really ask a question here, as so much has already been answered. Anyway, I recently had to start printing my own negatives, which I haven’t done in about 7 years, since I started photography as a teenager. My methods have changed, well, a lot. I have a proprietary development method I developed with an ex-apuger, which allows for quite an extreme push with conserved highlights and mid tones. I also push tri-x and tmax-400 to 1600 and 3200 on a regular basis using this method, or just plain xtol. I think my negatives look great, prints come (came) back from the printer looking great, but when I just went and dusted off the focomat 1c.. well, short print times, blown highlights, higher than desired contrast, and just overall don’t look good. All things I once avoided as a 17 year old in the darkroom, and learned were the products of push processing. God bless my printer, for he surely was skilled in dealing with the crap I sent him

What’s the best way to develop film for printing? I believe it’s great to be a printer who can print anything, but I’m simply not so skilled yet and need all the help I can get. Is there a way to push process film in certain way that results in a more printable negative? Maybe shoot at 1600 and develop for 3200? I just simply can’t live without pushing, as I couldn’t get the shots I get without that extra speed. However, I also can’t live with 8 second exposures at f8 (enlarging) and having to fight blown highlights and all the other symptoms of a pushed negative.

Thanks for all the help, and I appreciate your all’s time. I always wanted to post here, but sometimes things get very heated here

P.S. yes, these negatives scan very well, which is expected, I just don’t like digital prints. I’m not sure why. Sorry.

 

[markbau]

Have you tried to print a neg that your hotshot printer has printed well? There is no reason that you can't get close to their print. As for blown highlights, if your hotshot printer can get tonality in highlights but you get blank white when printing from the same neg you just need to increase exposure in that part of the print. Of course, if your neg is 100% opaque in the highlights, not even AA could get any detail from a neg like that. Can you show us a print from your printer and a print from the same neg that you made, that would be a good place to start!

 

[pentaxuser]

Mark makes a good suggestion. We can each of us give you our snippet( is that a British word only?) of our success/recommendation in one or two lines but what we really need to be able to do to help you is see the fruits of your darkroom labours ideally in terms of both negs and prints and those from the professional printer.

Let the dogs of Photrio see the rabbit as they say, to start the hunt and pursue it to a satisfactory outcome.

pentaxuser

 

[semi-ambivalent]

If there are visible varying highlight densities in the negatives that don't make it to the print you might also investigate pre-flashing the paper. There is certainly info on that here as well as elsewhere.

 

[removed account4]

Seems you need a dimmer enlarger bulb, ND filter ( or grey film on top of your negative to cut the light! ), or a riostat to reduce the light coming out of your enlarger head.
Years ago I had a dimmer made by Aristogrid, eventually I sold it when I started making bulletproof negatives.
https://www.light-sources.com/blog/product/d750-dimmer/
And then you gotta learn how to split print !
https://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/articles.php?page=full&article=21
I am not sure what print developer you use, but what I have found that also works wonders "difficult" film is
a low contrast developer, like Caffenol C with a splash of whatever full strength developer like Ansco 130 or Dektol or whatever else you might have...
anyways my recipe is ... you put it in a bath of your normal print developer, and as soon as the image begins to peek through the paper, you switch to the Caffenol stew
and then back again to boost the contrast and back into the Caffenol..
If you are wanting to learn how to develop for printable negatives, not sure how to answer that there are endless articles and posts here and elsewhere about developing plain vanilla film with plain vanilla developers to get printable negatives, you might have troubles though with your under-expose over-develop routine. Sprint film developer might be something to try, they give detailed instructions on how to figure out your development from whatever exposure method you are using, and I have found that Sprint doesnt' block up highlights when I over develop my film.
Good luck with your (processing and) printing!
John

 

[Doremus Scudder]

Did your printer make prints on silver-gelatin paper from your negatives, or were they scanned, tweaked in Photoshop or whatever and then printed? If the former, then there's no reason you can't achieve the same result yourself.

If printing times are too short, the you need to reduce light intensity somehow. Stopping down is the first choice, but if you have to stop down more than 3 stops, you're getting into diffraction degradation territory. The next choice is to get a dimmer bulb (less wattage). Next on the list is a neutral-density filter. This is just a logistics problem; once you have your exposure times up to a reasonable range, then you can deal with the contrast.

Learn to use your contrast controls; VC paper with low-contrast filtration will print a really contrasty negative. Start there. There are also low-contrast print developers that you can add to the mix. Flashing the paper and SLIMTs are down on the list of solutions, but can help in extreme cases.

As for getting "printable" negatives in the future. To paraphrase Kodak: "If your prints are consistently too contrasty, reduce negative development."

I'm not a fan of "pushing" film. Unless you have a good reason for intentionally underexposing (i.e., losing shadow detail) and overdeveloping your film (i.e., increasing contrast), then maybe you should consider using box speed and a manufacturers' recommended developing time and see what happens.

If you "need" to push, either because of low-light situations, or maybe you just like the "look," then work on refining your developing times using Kodak's advice above.

Best,

Doremus

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Hi everyone, I’ve been a long time user of this site (well, since it was apug), but never had the need to really ask a question here, as so much has already been answered. Anyway, I recently had to start printing my own negatives, which I haven’t done in about 7 years, since I started photography as a teenager. My methods have changed, well, a lot. I have a proprietary development method I developed with an ex-apuger, which allows for quite an extreme push with conserved highlights and mid tones. I also push tri-x and tmax-400 to 1600 and 3200 on a regular basis using this method, or just plain xtol. I think my negatives look great, prints come (came) back from the printer looking great, but when I just went and dusted off the focomat 1c.. well, short print times, blown highlights, higher than desired contrast, and just overall don’t look good. All things I once avoided as a 17 year old in the darkroom, and learned were the products of push processing. God bless my printer, for he surely was skilled in dealing with the crap I sent him

What’s the best way to develop film for printing? I believe it’s great to be a printer who can print anything, but I’m simply not so skilled yet and need all the help I can get. Is there a way to push process film in certain way that results in a more printable negative? Maybe shoot at 1600 and develop for 3200? I just simply can’t live without pushing, as I couldn’t get the shots I get without that extra speed. However, I also can’t live with 8 second exposures at f8 (enlarging) and having to fight blown highlights and all the other symptoms of a pushed negative.

Thanks for all the help, and I appreciate your all’s time. I always wanted to post here, but sometimes things get very heated here

P.S. yes, these negatives scan very well, which is expected, I just don’t like digital prints. I’m not sure why. Sorry.

You seem experienced enough to have heard of the Zone System. Trust me. it works and seems to be superior to what you have developed together with your ex-apuger. back to the rootsI say and forget your proprietary system.

 

[removed account4]

You seem experienced enough to have heard of the Zone System. Trust me. it works and seems to be superior to what you have developed together with your ex-apuger. back to the rootsI say and forget your proprietary system.

IDK Ralph,
It seem seems his method works, and he gets the conserved highlights and mid tones he wants, its just that with his limited printing experience he isn't able to make his
negatives sing like his contract printer. maybe he should hang out with his printer when he makes these magical prints.

 

[adelorenzo]

Andrew Sanderson did a comparison recently and got the best results with Mortensen semi-stand development.

https://thewebdarkroom.co.uk/2019/09/23/uprating-developing-methods-compared/

But your "proprietary" method must be so much better...

 

[Raghu Kuvempunagar]

I think my negatives look great, prints come (came) back from the printer looking great, but when I just went and dusted off the focomat 1c.. well, short print times, blown highlights, higher than desired contrast, and just overall don’t look good.

Can you take a pic each of the negative, your print and your printer's print with your phone camera and share them here?

 

[John51]

Lowering the voltage to the bulb will also change the contrast some. Although easy to account for with filters, imo best to give the bulb the same voltage for every print.

There's a problem using your contract printer as a reference. They have more experience and different equipment than you. They might even be using a developer that you cannot source.

To get your own reference, I'd suggest a test roll to establish what works best for your printing. The usual advice is to do 3 sets of test shots, say -2/+2 stops with, in your case, 0 being the asa you would like to shoot at. Cut the film into 3 and develop at N-1, N and N+1.

Make a contact print at the time needed for maximum black. Your notes will tell you the asa and dev time used for the good looking negs.

 

[Neal]

Spend more time printing! Just do it.

 

[jvo]

welcome....

if your printer is doing it, you can do it.

it may take work to replicate what your printer is doing but by posting a negative and resultant print, the "experts" here will get you close. maybe your printer will share some wisdom. although there are variables, it takes advice and printing to get what you want out of a negative.

depending on where you are, you may have one or two apuggers nearby that would be willing to spend a day, working in your darkroom to work it out! (lunch is a good motivator!)

have fun.

p.s. what are you shooting that requires push processing? maybe there is another way to expose to get what you want and make a more standard printable negative?

 

[pentaxuser]

Well the person in question hasn't responded to any of our requests to give us pics of the negs and indeed hasn't been here since his original posting. There may well be good reasons for this but until he is in a position to respond and interact then we are just discussing his problem between ourselves. In my case this is of no help to him as he isn't here and is certainly of no help to me.

pentaxuser